59 found
Order:
  1.  8
    The Rationality of Informal Argumentation: A Bayesian Approach to Reasoning Fallacies.Ulrike Hahn & Mike Oaksford - 2007 - Psychological Review 114 (3):704-732.
  2.  30
    Cancellation, Negation, and Rejection.Niels Skovgaard-Olsen, Peter Collins, Karolina Krzyżanowska, Ulrike Hahn & Karl Christoph Klauer - forthcoming - Cognitive Psychology.
    In this paper, new evidence is presented for the assumption that the reason-relation reading of indicative conditionals ('if A, then C') reflects a conventional implicature. In four experiments, it is investigated whether relevance effects found for the probability assessment of indicative conditionals (Skovgaard-Olsen, Singmann, and Klauer, 2016a) can be classified as being produced by a) a conversational implicature, b) a (probabilistic) presupposition failure, or c) a conventional implicature. After considering several alternative hypotheses and the accumulating evidence from other studies as (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3.  93
    A Bayesian Approach to Informal Argument Fallacies.Ulrike Hahn & Mike Oaksford - 2006 - Synthese 152 (2):207-236.
    We examine in detail three classic reasoning fallacies, that is, supposedly ``incorrect'' forms of argument. These are the so-called argumentam ad ignorantiam, the circular argument or petitio principii, and the slippery slope argument. In each case, the argument type is shown to match structurally arguments which are widely accepted. This suggests that it is not the form of the arguments as such that is problematic but rather something about the content of those examples with which they are typically justified. This (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   27 citations  
  4.  46
    Argument Content and Argument Source: An Exploration.Ulrike Hahn, Adam J. L. Harris & Adam Corner - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (4):337-367.
    Argumentation is pervasive in everyday life. Understanding what makes a strong argument is therefore of both theoretical and practical interest. One factor that seems intuitively important to the strength of an argument is the reliability of the source providing it. Whilst traditional approaches to argument evaluation are silent on this issue, the Bayesian approach to argumentation (Hahn & Oaksford, 2007) is able to capture important aspects of source reliability. In particular, the Bayesian approach predicts that argument content and source reliability (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  5.  25
    The Appeal to Expert Opinion: Quantitative Support for a Bayesian Network Approach.Adam J. L. Harris, Ulrike Hahn, Jens K. Madsen & Anne S. Hsu - 2016 - Cognitive Science 40 (6):1496-1533.
    The appeal to expert opinion is an argument form that uses the verdict of an expert to support a position or hypothesis. A previous scheme-based treatment of the argument form is formalized within a Bayesian network that is able to capture the critical aspects of the argument form, including the central considerations of the expert's expertise and trustworthiness. We propose this as an appropriate normative framework for the argument form, enabling the development and testing of quantitative predictions as to how (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  6.  75
    Normative Theories of Argumentation: Are Some Norms Better Than Others?Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn - 2013 - Synthese 190 (16):3579-3610.
    Norms—that is, specifications of what we ought to do—play a critical role in the study of informal argumentation, as they do in studies of judgment, decision-making and reasoning more generally. Specifically, they guide a recurring theme: are people rational? Though rules and standards have been central to the study of reasoning, and behavior more generally, there has been little discussion within psychology about why (or indeed if) they should be considered normative despite the considerable philosophical literature that bears on this (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  7.  40
    A Normative Framework for Argument Quality: Argumentation Schemes with a Bayesian Foundation.Ulrike Hahn & Jos Hornikx - 2016 - Synthese 193 (6):1833-1873.
    In this paper, it is argued that the most fruitful approach to developing normative models of argument quality is one that combines the argumentation scheme approach with Bayesian argumentation. Three sample argumentation schemes from the literature are discussed: the argument from sign, the argument from expert opinion, and the appeal to popular opinion. Limitations of the scheme-based treatment of these argument forms are identified and it is shown how a Bayesian perspective may help to overcome these. At the same time, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  8.  9
    The Bayesian Boom: Good Thing or Bad?Ulrike Hahn - 2014 - Frontiers in Psychology 5.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  9.  45
    Public Reception of Climate Science: Coherence, Reliability, and Independence.Ulrike Hahn, Adam J. L. Harris & Adam Corner - 2016 - Topics in Cognitive Science 8 (1):180-195.
    Possible measures to mitigate climate change require global collective actions whose impacts will be felt by many, if not all. Implementing such actions requires successful communication of the reasons for them, and hence the underlying climate science, to a degree that far exceeds typical scientific issues which do not require large-scale societal response. Empirical studies have identified factors, such as the perceived level of consensus in scientific opinion and the perceived reliability of scientists, that can limit people's trust in science (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  10.  26
    Source Reliability and the Conjunction Fallacy.Andreas Jarvstad & Ulrike Hahn - 2011 - Cognitive Science 35 (4):682-711.
  11.  5
    Who “Believes” in the Gambler’s Fallacy and Why?George D. Farmer, Paul A. Warren & Ulrike Hahn - 2017 - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 146 (1):63-76.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  12.  4
    Evaluating Science Arguments: Evidence, Uncertainty, and Argument Strength.Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn - 2009 - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 15 (3):199-212.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  13.  63
    The Burden of Proof and Its Role in Argumentation.Ulrike Hahn & Mike Oaksford - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (1):39-61.
    The notion of “the burden of proof” plays an important role in real-world argumentation contexts, in particular in law. It has also been given a central role in normative accounts of argumentation, and has been used to explain a range of classic argumentation fallacies. We argue that in law the goal is to make practical decisions whereas in critical discussion the goal is frequently simply to increase or decrease degree of belief in a proposition. In the latter case, it is (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  14.  2
    Perceptions of Randomness: Why Three Heads Are Better Than Four.Ulrike Hahn & Paul A. Warren - 2009 - Psychological Review 116 (2):454-461.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  15.  25
    The Bi-Directional Relationship Between Source Characteristics and Message Content.Peter J. Collins, Ulrike Hahn, Ylva von Gerber & Erik J. Olsson - 2018 - Frontiers in Psychology 9.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  16.  31
    Reasoning and Argumentation: Towards an Integrated Psychology of Argumentation.Jos Hornikx & Ulrike Hahn - 2012 - Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):225 - 243.
    Although argumentation plays an essential role in our lives, there is no integrated area of research on the psychology of argumentation. Instead research on argumentation is conducted in a number of separate research communities that are spread across disciplines and have only limited interaction. With a view to bridging these different strands, we first distinguish between three meanings of the word ?argument?: argument as a reason, argument as a structured sequence of reasons and claims, and argument as a social exchange. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  17.  19
    James is Polite and Punctual (and Useless): A Bayesian Formalisation of Faint Praise.Adam J. L. Harris, Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn - 2013 - Thinking and Reasoning 19 (3-4):414-429.
  18.  17
    A Normative Theory of Argument Strength.Ulrike Hahn & Mike Oaksford - 2006 - Informal Logic 26 (1):1-24.
    In this article, we argue for the general importance of normative theories of argument strength. We also provide some evidence based on our recent work on the fallacies as to why Bayesian probability might, in fact, be able to supply such an account. In the remainder of the article we discuss the general characteristics that make a specifically Bayesian approach desirable, and critically evaluate putative flaws of Bayesian probability that have been raised in the argumentation literature.
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  19.  35
    Experiential Limitation in Judgment and Decision.Ulrike Hahn - 2014 - Topics in Cognitive Science 6 (2):229-244.
    The statistics of small samples are often quite different from those of large samples, and this needs to be taken into account in assessing the rationality of human behavior. Specifically, in evaluating human responses to environmental statistics, it is the effective environment that matters; that is, the environment actually experienced by the agent needs to be considered, not simply long-run frequencies. Significant deviations from long-run statistics may arise through experiential limitations of the agent that stem from resource constraints and/or information-processing (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  20.  20
    Similarity as Transformation.Ulrike Hahn, Nick Chater & Lucy B. Richardson - 2003 - Cognition 87 (1):1-32.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  21.  30
    Similarity and Rules: Distinct? Exhaustive? Empirically Distinguishable?Ulrike Hahn & Nick Chater - 1998 - Cognition 65 (2-3):197-230.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  22.  19
    Causal Argument.Ulrike Hahn, Frank Zenker & Roland Bluhm - 2017 - In Michael R. Waldmann (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 475-494.
    In this chapter, we outline the range of argument forms involving causation that can be found in everyday discourse. We also survey empirical work concerned with the generation and evaluation of such arguments. This survey makes clear that there is presently no unified body of research concerned with causal argument. We highlight the benefits of a unified treatment both for those interested in causal cognition and those interested in argumentation, and identify the key challenges that must be met for a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23.  6
    How Good Is Your Evidence and How Would You Know?Ulrike Hahn, Christoph Merdes & Momme von Sydow - 2018 - Topics in Cognitive Science 10 (4):660-678.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24.  4
    Unrealistic Optimism About Future Life Events: A Cautionary Note.Adam J. L. Harris & Ulrike Hahn - 2011 - Psychological Review 118 (1):135-154.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  25.  20
    Estimating the Probability of Negative Events.Adam J. L. Harris, Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn - 2009 - Cognition 110 (1):51-64.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  26.  5
    The Kind of Group You Want to Belong To: Effects of Group Structure on Group Accuracy.Martin L. Jönsson, Ulrike Hahn & Erik J. Olsson - 2015 - Cognition 142:191-204.
    There has been much interest in group judgment and the so-called 'wisdom of crowds'. In many real world contexts, members of groups not only share a dependence on external sources of information, but they also communicate with one another, thus introducing correlations among their responses that can diminish collective accuracy. This has long been known, but it has-to date-not been examined to what extent different kinds of communication networks may give rise to systematically different effects on accuracy. We argue that (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  27.  12
    Explaining More by Drawing on Less.Ulrike Hahn - 2009 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (1):90-91.
    One of the most striking features of is the detail with which behavior on logical reasoning tasks can now be predicted and explained. This detail is surprising, given the state of the field 10 to 15 years ago, and it has been brought about by a theoretical program that largely ignores consideration of cognitive processes, that is, any kind of internal behavior that generates overt responding. It seems that an increase in explanatory power can be achieved by restricting a psychological (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  28.  32
    Individual Belief Revision Dynamics in a Group Context.Igor Volzhanin, Ulrike Hahn, Martin Jönsson & Erik J. Olsson - unknown
  29.  27
    Rational Argument, Rational Inference.Ulrike Hahn, Adam J. L. Harris & Mike Oaksford - 2013 - Argument and Computation 4 (1):21 - 35.
    (2013). Rational argument, rational inference. Argument & Computation: Vol. 4, Formal Models of Reasoning in Cognitive Psychology, pp. 21-35. doi: 10.1080/19462166.2012.689327.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  30.  5
    Truth Tracking Performance of Social Networks: How Connectivity and Clustering Can Make Groups Less Competent.Ulrike Hahn, Jens Ulrik Hansen & Erik J. Olsson - forthcoming - Synthese:1-31.
    Our beliefs and opinions are shaped by others, making our social networks crucial in determining what we believe to be true. Sometimes this is for the good because our peers help us form a more accurate opinion. Sometimes it is for the worse because we are led astray. In this context, we address via agent-based computer simulations the extent to which patterns of connectivity within our social networks affect the likelihood that initially undecided agents in a network converge on a (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  31.  51
    Conditionals, Individual Variation, and the Scorekeeping Task.Niels Skovgaard-Olsen, David Kellen, Ulrike Hahn & Karl Christoph Klauer - 2017 - Proceedings of Cognitive Science:xxx.
    In this manuscript we study individual variation in the interpretation of conditionals by establishing individual profiles of the participants based on their behavioral responses and reflective attitudes. To investigate the participants’ reflective attitudes we introduce a new experimental paradigm called the Scorekeeping Task, and a Bayesian mixture model tailored to analyze the data. The goal is thereby to identify the participants who follow the Suppositional Theory of conditionals and Inferentialism and to investigate their performance on the uncertain and-to-if inference task.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32.  8
    Why Rational Norms Are Indispensable.Ulrike Hahn - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (5):257-258.
    Normative theories provide essential tools for understanding behaviour, not just for reasoning, judgement, and decision-making, but many other areas of cognition as well; and their utility extends to the development of process theories. Furthermore, the way these tools are used has nothing to do with the is-ought fallacy. There therefore seems no basis for the claim that research would be better off without them.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  33.  4
    Are Perceptuo-Motor Decisions Really More Optimal Than Cognitive Decisions?Andreas Jarvstad, Ulrike Hahn, Paul A. Warren & Simon K. Rushton - 2014 - Cognition 130 (3):397-416.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  34.  1
    Why Three Heads Are a Better Bet Than Four: A Reply to Sun, Tweney, and Wang.Ulrike Hahn & Paul A. Warren - 2010 - Psychological Review 117 (2):706-711.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  35.  10
    Transformation and Alignment in Similarity.Carl J. Hodgetts, Ulrike Hahn & Nick Chater - 2009 - Cognition 113 (1):62-79.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  36.  41
    Evaluating the Meta-Slope: Is There a Slippery Slope Argument Against Slippery Slope Arguments? [REVIEW]Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (4):349-359.
    Slippery slope arguments (SSAs) have often been viewed as inherently weak arguments, to be classified together with traditional fallacies of reasoning and argumentation such as circular arguments and arguments from ignorance. Over the last two decades several philosophers have taken a kinder view, often providing historical examples of the kind of gradual change on which slippery slope arguments rely. Against this background, Enoch (2001, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 21(4), 629–647) presented a novel argument against SSA use that itself invokes (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  37.  12
    What Makes Words Sound Similar?Ulrike Hahn & Todd M. Bailey - 2005 - Cognition 97 (3):227-267.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  38.  25
    Message Framing, Normative Advocacy and Persuasive Success.Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (2):153-163.
    In a recent article in Argumentation, O’Keefe (Argumentation 21:151–163, 2007) observed that the well-known ‘framing effects’ in the social psychological literature on persuasion are akin to traditional fallacies of argumentation and reasoning and could be exploited for persuasive success in a way that conflicts with principles of responsible advocacy. Positively framed messages (“if you take aspirin, your heart will be more healthy”) differ in persuasive effect from negative frames (“if you do not take aspirin, your heart will be less healthy”), (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  39.  19
    Exemplar Similarity and Rule Application.Ulrike Hahn, Mercè Prat-Sala, Emmanuel M. Pothos & Duncan P. Brumby - 2010 - Cognition 114 (1):1-18.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  40.  6
    Real-World Categories Don't Allow Uniform Feature Spaces – Not Just Across Categories but Within Categories Also.Ulrike Hahn & Nick Chater - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):28-28.
    The Schyns et al. target article demonstrates that different classifications entail different representations, implying “flexible space learning.” We argue that flexibility is required even at the within-category level.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  41.  18
    Non-Monotonicity and Informal Reasoning: Comment on Ferguson (2003).Mike Oaksford & Ulrike Hahn - 2006 - Argumentation 20 (2):245-251.
    In this paper, it is argued that Ferguson’s (2003, Argumentation 17, 335–346) recent proposal to reconcile monotonic logic with defeasibility has three counterintuitive consequences. First, the conclusions that can be derived from his new rule of inference are vacuous, a point that as already made against default logics when there are conflicting defaults. Second, his proposal requires a procedural “hack” to the break the symmetry between the disjuncts of the tautological conclusions to which his proposal leads. Third, Ferguson’s proposal amounts (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42.  41
    Contingent Necessity Versus Logical Necessity in Categorisation.Emmanuel M. Pothos, Ulrike Hahn & Mercè Prat-Sala - 2010 - Thinking and Reasoning 16 (1):45 – 65.
    Critical (necessary or sufficient) features in categorisation have a long history, but the empirical evidence makes their existence questionable. Nevertheless, there are some cases that suggest critical feature effects. The purpose of the present work is to offer some insight into why classification decisions might misleadingly appear as if they involve critical features. Utilising Tversky's (1977) contrast model of similarity, we suggest that when an object has a sparser representation, changing any of its features is more likely to lead to (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43.  2
    Between a Conditional’s Antecedent and its Consequent: Discourse Coherence Vs. Probabilistic Relevance.Karolina Krzyżanowska, Peter J. Collins & Ulrike Hahn - 2017 - Cognition 164:199-205.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  44.  18
    The Dual-Route Account of German: Where It is Not a Schema Theory, It is Probably Wrong.Ulrike Hahn - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (6):1024-1025.
    Clahsen's experimental data from generalization, frequency, and priming fail to support and even conflict with those aspects of his dual-route account that distinguish it from schema theories.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  45.  8
    Similarity.Ulrike Hahn - 2003 - In L. Nadel (ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. Nature Publishing Group.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  46.  15
    Is This What the Debate on Rules Was About?Ulrike Hahn - 2005 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):25-26.
    The key weakness of the proposed distinction between rules and similarity is that it effectively converts what was previously seen as a consequence of rule or similarity-based processing, into a definition of rule and similarity themselves – evidence is elevated into a conceptual distinction. This conflicts with fundamental intuitions about processes and erodes the relevance of the debate across cognitive science.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47.  20
    What is the Dynamical Hypothesis?Nick Chater & Ulrike Hahn - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):633-634.
    Van Gelder's specification of the dynamical hypothesis does not improve on previous notions. All three key attributes of dynamical systems apply to Turing machines and are hence too general. However, when a more restricted definition of a dynamical system is adopted, it becomes clear that the dynamical hypothesis is too underspecified to constitute an interesting cognitive claim.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  48.  5
    "Perceptions of Randomness: Why Three Heads Are Better Than Four": Correction to Hahn and Warren.Ulrike Hahn & Paul A. Warren - 2009 - Psychological Review 116 (4):874-874.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49.  5
    Social Values as Arguments: Similar is Convincing.Gregory R. Maio, Ulrike Hahn, John-Mark Frost, Toon Kuppens, Nadia Rehman & Shanmukh Kamble - 2014 - Frontiers in Psychology 5.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50.  16
    What's in a Heuristic?Ulrike Hahn, John-Mark Frost & Greg Maio - 2005 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (4):551-552.
    The term “moral heuristic” as used by Sunstein seeks to bring together various traditions. However, there are significant differences between uses of the term “heuristic” in the cognitive and the social psychological research, and these differences are accompanied by very distinct evidential criteria. We suggest the term “moral heuristic” should refer to processes, which means that further evidence is required.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 59